On one of the email lists I subscribe to, a conversation took place recently that I think has a little bearing on those of us who are atheists or agnostics. The list was one on the subject of Polyamory, and the specific topic had to do with what we call ourselves.
Polyamorists are not monogamous, as you've probably determined if you followed the above link. Many Poly people refer to themselves as "non-monogamous," in fact. But one member of the group, Jasmine, said this:
I've heard an argument several times that at first seemed minor, but it grows on me each time: that we should try to avoid use of the term "nonmonogamy." This argument is based on the idea that we need to define ourselves by who we *are*, rather than who we are *not*. We are *not* failing-to-choose-monogamy. We are not giving-up-monogamy. We are intentionally choosing multi-partners.For example, gays don't engage in "non-heterosexuality." And while "non-white" is a fairly common catch-all term, I don't hear blacks referring to themselves that way, nor Hispanics, nor Asians, etc. Then there's religion. Christians often refer to people of other religions as "non-Christians" -- but Hindus don't call themselves that, nor do Muslims, nor do Pagans.
As a result, I've tried to substitute "multi-partnering" for non-monogamy wherever possible.
This seems such a minor point, but these tiny little details make a bigger difference than we realize in the self-perception of newcomers to poly -- and maybe in the reactions of monos we are talking to. What we *are*, rather than what we are *not*.
I don't expect the term "non-monogamy" to go away any time soon. But it's worth thinking about.
This whole conversation got me to thinking about those of us who label ourselves "atheist" or "agnostic." These words, too, say what we are not. They say nothing about what we are.
Part of me says, "That's true, but we are, after all, simply stating that we don't subscribe to a particular paradigm. We are not trying to define ourselves, necessarily, merely pointing out that we lie outside of other labels."
But the other part of me says, "Even so, it's better to identify as something positive rather than negative. After all, people pick up on the negative and react to it."
This is true, isn't it, folks? The very word "atheist" is inflammatory to many people. "Agnostic" is, too, but to a lesser degree. "Non-theist" or "non-religious" isn't a great deal better. A positive label seems to elicit a better response to the theist.
This, of course, would require that we all actually explore other things. Many atheists also identify with Humanism. I certainly do. But I've considered myself an atheist for two decades or more, and a Humanist for only a year or two. It's just automatic that I refer to myself as an atheist, not a Humanist.
Like Jasmine, I don't expect our negative labels to be abandoned any time soon. But it is worth thinking about.
